Exposure to animals and fertilizers among farmers in Khonkaen (phase 2 data only)
. | Cases . | . | Controls . | . | Relative risk estimate* . | . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exposure . | No. . | % . | No. . | % . | Crude . | Multivariate†(95% CI) . | |||
Farm animals | |||||||||
Cattle or water buffalo | 30 | 45 | 79 | 33 | 1.7 | 1.2 (0.6-2.4) | |||
Chickens | 29 | 44 | 68 | 29 | 2.0 | 1.0 (0.5-2.0) | |||
Ducks or geese‡ | 17 | 26 | 18 | 8 | 4.2 | 3.7 (1.6-8.1) | |||
Pigs | 5 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3.8 | 2.5 (0.6-10) | |||
Fertilizer§ | |||||||||
Chemical | 46 | 70 | 161 | 68 | 1.1 | — | |||
Animal∥ | 18 | 27 | 30 | 13 | 2.6 | 2.1 (1.0-4.4) | |||
Compost | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.4 | — | — |
. | Cases . | . | Controls . | . | Relative risk estimate* . | . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exposure . | No. . | % . | No. . | % . | Crude . | Multivariate†(95% CI) . | |||
Farm animals | |||||||||
Cattle or water buffalo | 30 | 45 | 79 | 33 | 1.7 | 1.2 (0.6-2.4) | |||
Chickens | 29 | 44 | 68 | 29 | 2.0 | 1.0 (0.5-2.0) | |||
Ducks or geese‡ | 17 | 26 | 18 | 8 | 4.2 | 3.7 (1.6-8.1) | |||
Pigs | 5 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3.8 | 2.5 (0.6-10) | |||
Fertilizer§ | |||||||||
Chemical | 46 | 70 | 161 | 68 | 1.1 | — | |||
Animal∥ | 18 | 27 | 30 | 13 | 2.6 | 2.1 (1.0-4.4) | |||
Compost | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.4 | — | — |
Questions added in March, 1998; information available for 66 cases and 238 controls.
— indicates not calculated.
Relative to nonexposure to the factor under consideration
The following factors were included in the model: age, sex, residential location, year of interview (continuous term), pesticide use, exposure to farm animals, animal fertilizer use, consumption of nonbottled water. Statistically significant estimates are italicized
At least 10 ducks were kept by 11 cases and 10 controls (MVRR 3.9, 1.4-11)
No subjects reported using human waste as fertilizer
Cattle or water buffalo (15 cases, 24 controls; 1 case and 1 control did not report exposure to farm animals), chickens (5, 11); ducks (4, 3); pigs (3, 2)